[AccessD] Confused by One to Many versus One to One

I vaguely recall writing about it too, but at 70 my memory isn't what it
used to be!  ;-}

I did think about doing it  for dam data, but wound up using one-to-many
history tables instead with the current data in a single table and past
changes recorded in separate smaller tables depending on the kind of
information involved.

Charlotte

On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Susan Harkins <ssharkins at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't have the serious development experience that most of you have, so
> my 2 cents is really just 2 cents, but in my experience, 1 to 1
> relationships are the result of business rules and not something the data
> itself requires. I've only had to deal with one once. Charlotte, I think we
> wrote about them, didn't we? I tried to find something online, but
> couldn't. Perhaps it was in Inside Access -- just don't remember.
>
> Susan H.
>
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Charlotte Foust <
> charlotte.foust at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I've used that approach many times in exactly that kind of
> situation,
> > Stuart.
> >
> > Charlotte
>